An Introductory Skirmish with Ooodles of Strelkovy

[Hard A**]

My friend Hudson and I had an excellent game of Flames of War last night, his British Air Landing corps and Commandos versus my Strelkovy Batalon. We probed each others defenses (and as usual my light tanks died in droves) for a few turns before I managed to whittle down and eventually put a lasting pin on the commandos holding his left flank. Then the Strelkovy company that had been mooching about over there steamed in for the final assault. I think both Hudson and myself learnt a lot from that game about timing!

Now the club (SWAT = Swindon Wargamers And Tactitians) has enough appropriate 15mm scenary to act as cover and to deny line of sight, I am finding it profitable to bend the Soviet doctrine of just kick the ball forward and charge full tilt at the enemy lines. Along with making use of cover; buildings, hedgerows and walls, I have also just about got the numbers to absorb some light shooty punishment before the guys get to the enemy lines, and they can also deal out plentiful shots as they move forward. In short, I have reached the stage where I am developing a feel for the way that this horde army can behave and furthermore some satisfactory Soviet-style tactics...

[xDETHx Turtle]

Sounds like you had a good game. It certainly looks interesting, is it normally an enjoyable experience? How would you rate it against, say, 40k? Is it nice to just play a one-off game of this to have a break from 40k or do you see yourself playing this more? Sorry for all the questions, i'm just interested is all .

[Hard A**]

Questions are good, I have no problems with questions.

The Flames of War games we have had have invariably been good and very enjoyable. That's partially down to the quality of the opponents and the atmosphere we create, but we also agree that the FoW games system is conducive to satisfactory and pleasant play. Each phase of each turn is involving and interesting for both players.

Myself, I find it difficult to rate it against 40K as I haven't played 40K for about four years now, but we do have a lot of 40k'ers down at the club and it doesn't seem to have changed all that much.

Flames of War has very much fewer specific rules for individual troop types, after a short while you don't need to consult the 'codex' at all, or even the main rulebook. Each nationality has about half-a-dozen rules to define its battlefield characteristics. I'll give a few examples. To represent German doctrinal initiative each German unit has a 'Stormtrooper' move that allows them (if they pass a skill dice roll) to move 4 inches in the assault phase (the last phase of the turn). Each German Tiger tank platoon will have an extra skill (as determined at the start of the game) that allows that platoon to shoot slightly better, or recover from damage quicker etc. Soviets have rules that emphasise the difficulty of controlling massed ranks of infantry (so an entire Soviet company of maybe 30 team bases must each be within a command distance of 4" of another base in order for the entire company to move freely - with other armies this restriction is at the platoon level of maybe 8 bases) and untrained tank crews (if you move more than 6", you can't shoot). But these rules are simple enough and given in the main rule book so any player can grasp them at the start of a game. So there are no rules surprises and everything fits neatly within the comprehensive and well-balanced rules framework. This engenders trust between the players and makes for a pleasant flowing games experience without diving into codex’s every two minutes.

The games turn is well structured and flows easily. The games mechanisms are fairly intuitive, results of shooting and motivation can be generated swiftly and easily. Close Combat is the most complex aspect (as with most games) but there are good examples in the Rulebook and online, so you can get your head around it fairly easily. It's worth mentioning that the main Rulebook has not changed since 2006 - they do not feel the need to deliberately rehash the rules every couple of years so as to compel you to buy more models to restructure your army.

As I said, I don't play 40K any more but I do play Warhammer Fantasy. But I would say that Flames of War was my favourite games system and if I absolutely HAD to choose, I think I'd be sending my Ogres and Vampire Counts armies to Ebay first...

[xDETHx Turtle]

Cheers for the comprehensive review, i appreciate it. I certainly like the fact the core rules have remained the same for the past four years, thats good to know. I don't mind whether the rules are complicated or simple to be honest. Generally if it is complicated it is more realistic and presents more of a challenge and if it is simple its more streamlined and possibly more enjoyable. I found 40k extremely easy to pick up and have only played 4 500 point games of it so far and i find i rarely have to look at any rules so FoW doesn't sound like it will cause to much problems.

I also had a look at the FoW website the other night and discovered their online store sells models in NZD, that is incredibly awesome! Normally i'm used to paying 1.5x on Forge World in AUD, but FoW would be the other way around lol. Thanks again for the detailed response, deserving of some rep.

[Hard A**]

Well, as it happens Flames of War is a New Zealand based company! So in theory at least you should be reaping the benefits of having the items produced in your own part of the world...

[SandWyrm]

Sounds like you had a good game. It certainly looks interesting, is it normally an enjoyable experience? How would you rate it against, say, 40k? Is it nice to just play a one-off game of this to have a break from 40k or do you see yourself playing this more? Sorry for all the questions, i'm just interested is all .

Well, speaking as a (former) hard-core 40K player (as of last fall), Flames has pretty much taken over all of my gaming interest.

Flames is extremely well written, and everything is balanced. To the point that you can just pick your favorite faction/style and go with it. Unlike 40K, where just a couple of books/lists predominate. There are also no useless models in this game.

The game itself is highly enjoyable, the rules feel more logical in terms of what you can do, and I've yet to see a game where the losing player couldn't have won it with better tactics. Beyond a few basics, this is NOT a game that's won at the list-building phase.

The only downside is that you don't get space monsters. Though you could model your forces with some Hellboy or Captain America monsters if you wanted to.

[SandWyrm]

Oh, and here's some battle reports I've done. I'm still a newb myself, but they should give you an idea of how things work. As I wrote them from a 40K perspective.

The Back 40K: Battle Report: Sandwyrm's Panzers vs. TheNeverThere's T-34's
The Back 40K: Battle Report: German Panzers vs. Russian Infantry

[Korona]

I didn't notice that there's a FoW section here - cool!

FoW vs 40k is pretty hard to quantify. I think 40k is more varied in its "stock" game types with a huge diversity in matchups and models. Flames is much more standardised with the biggest difference between factions being the motivation and skill levels of the troops.
Overall you roll a lot less dice for stuff in flames and that makes you vulnerable to bad rolls. A lot of the actions will be roughly 50/50 odds and morale is just brutal. Because it's random you can't predict the outcome of your actions very easily and I feel that hurts its raw competitiveness. You certainly can't min/max your firepower in a turn and you're actually able to completly blow a turn or even the whole game by a few bad rolls.

Which is actually why I like it so much. You just can't take the games too seriously. It comes into its own when you ditch the idea of competitive "pitched battles" (I think the standard FoW scenario is "dust up") and move into more themed games. Which is something Flames does REALLY well. The rules for terrain features and fortifications like wire, mines, trenches and bunkers are all really solid and integrated right into the core rules set. Being able to interact with the board so well really lends itself to narrative missions, by which all I really mean is a fight with some POINT to it.
Compare "hey my marines are going to bash your space elves cos they look funny!" to "hey let's fight the battle of Kursk!" or the D-Day landings or the Battle of the Bulge or even some crazy fictional mega-fortress. That's the key hook for me and why I'm currently basing a load of dirt-cheap PSC soviet conscipts

[SandWyrm]

I didn't notice that there's a FoW section here - cool!

FoW vs 40k is pretty hard to quantify. I think 40k is more varied in its "stock" game types with a huge diversity in matchups and models. Flames is much more standardised with the biggest difference between factions being the motivation and skill levels of the troops.

The only variety edge 40K has is in the fantastical models department. Flames simply doesn't have the sci-fi/fantasy eye candy factor going on.

However, from a variety standpoint, gameplay wise, I really do think that Flames has a huge edge. 40K has what? Sixteen factions? But half of those are Marines with fairly minor variations, and all of the differences between them are less than the differences between say, the dozen distinct German army lists in the North Africa book alone. To say nothing of all the crazy lists for Russia in Eastern Front. The Russians can literally run just about anything from massed cavalry to captured German heavy tanks. Add in Americans, British, Italians, and all of the minor nations, and you have WAY more variety available than in 40K. With special rules that actually make sense.

Overall you roll a lot less dice for stuff in flames and that makes you vulnerable to bad rolls. A lot of the actions will be roughly 50/50 odds and morale is just brutal. Because it's random you can't predict the outcome of your actions very easily and I feel that hurts its raw competitiveness. You certainly can't min/max your firepower in a turn and you're actually able to completely blow a turn or even the whole game by a few bad rolls.

Less dice rolled does not automatically equal less reliable. You have to look at the odds involved and compare the systems that way. When shooting, for instance, it's not the total dice rolled that matters for reliability. It's the number of ATTACKS that matters. If you shoot something in 40K and roll 10 dice 4 times (hit, wound, save, fnp), the results of the 40 dice rolled will be less reliable for the attacker than if you roll 15 dice 2 times (hit, save). Because in the 2nd case you're rolling 50% more attacks.

For instance, Speeders in 40K now have the jink rule that gives them a 5+ invul save. But when you look at the math, then you would see a very similar gain in survivability if you simply said shooting at speeders gives you a -1 to-hit penalty. But you have to roll 3 dice in 40K to get the same result as 2 rolls in Flames.

[Korona]

With faction variety, I think Flames does a good job while being constrained by reality. 40k is kind of the opposite. Your imagination can't run rampant when you're building your FoW faction, you have to stick with history - neo-tokyo neuromancer space elves or evil demons from another dimension are certainly out.
But in terms of what your guys can actually get up to Flames really has the edge. Fighting in cities, fields, in the bocage or across huge defensive lines really does all work well thanks to their simple-but-solid approach to stuff like buildings and fortifications.
Flames works with a restricted pallette compared to 40k but we're still talking about the most varied and complex war in human history. The range of historical scenarios still trumps anything 40k scenario writers have been able to come up with and the Flames ruleset is far more solid in supporting it than 40k ever will be.
40k lore is crazy and could justify mega-versions of traditional conflicts but they don't translate that scale onto the tabletop. I've played trench warfare in 40k using the Siege of Vraks scenarios. I even went to the trouble to make a 28mm scale trenchworks... But really it just falls a bit flat...
Whereas Flames integrates fortifications into the gameplay seamlessly:
Soviet Motorstrelkovy vs Finn Pioneers (Big Push) ~ WWPD: Your Source For All Things Flames of War!


Now, with the randomness thing, I'm talking about the overall number of attempts you get to make critical rolls and the chances of failure. There's nothing in 40k that can have your entire army run off the board on a 50/50% die roll. Stuff like that just makes me mentally incapable of conceiving of the game as being competitive. It's much closer to roleplay than 40k is, at least for me and the guys I play it with. That's why the next addition to my army might well have to be this:
http://www.thehistorybunker.co.uk/ac...nfOffVisor.jpg